Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees • Hacker News Board

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#191

Post by jupp0r » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:01 AM UTC

tjr wrote: post #84

mellosouls wrote: post #59

Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees going elsewhere. Of course there is a duty on employees to be professional - the latter will be the ones taking up opportunities at non-legacy/dinosaur corporations that think they can command the waves. The answer is to sort your processes, security and training out - new AI is here to stay,…

Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees going elsewhere. Why? Companies typically have many rules that they expect employees to follow. Why would employees disregard these particular rules, or even quit because of them?

Just imagine companies would not allow people to use internet search engines for their daily work.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#192

Post by ipaddr » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:10 AM UTC

mellosouls wrote: post #59

Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees going elsewhere. Of course there is a duty on employees to be professional - the latter will be the ones taking up opportunities at non-legacy/dinosaur corporations that think they can command the waves. The answer is to sort your processes, security and training out - new AI is here to stay,…

I was with you until you said employees going elsewhere. There will be a group who needs to use it because they can't function without some AI assisted help but people working at the company know how to do their jobs already why leave?

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#193

Post by ipaddr » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:25 AM UTC

oceanplexian wrote: post #180

NhanH wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not clear whether ChatGPT and the likes would increase productivity at the organization level. And I am talking about the current GPT-4, not some hypothetical AGI. From what I have seen, a large swath of usages are basically just people DDOSing their teams with a lot of words. Things like someone in a marketing team prompting for a “detailed 10-week plan with actual numbers” that naturally have no basis on reali…

All these arguments about how it can be wrong are literally identical to the arguments I heard from ignorant people between 2001-2008 on why search engines were unsafe because Google could return wrong answers or steal your data. IMO the only people crapping on AI either don’t know how to prompt it correctly, aren’t very creative, or frankly weren’t doing that much work in the first place and feel threatened by it. I…

Unsafe sounds like a parent explaining things to you.

The big area of concern were people using 'doctor google' instead of going to a doctor. Finding a sore throat and jumping down the most negative path.

You could use google to mine certain types of data in that era. Passwords.. now much of that is filtered.

In 10 years those intellectual property rights might give them ownership over AI. The court battles haven't begun yet

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#194

Post by dougmwne » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:26 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #86

I'm not suggesting the concerns aren't valid, but I guess I don't understand why this same principal isn't applied to other internet connected / cloud software? Do these companies worry that web browsers like Chrome could leak data or applications like Google Docs? What is it about an AI chat bots that makes the risk of a data leak so much higher? Is something about OpenAI's ToS? Or it's relative infancy?

It’s shadow IT. You are not supposed to leak confidential company data to any other company unless you have the appropriate vendor agreements in place. It’s like loading the source code to Dropbox when you are supposed to use bitbucket.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#195

Post by logicfiction » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:28 AM UTC

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #181

EFreethought wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not used ChatGPT, so I need to ask: What is the default? Most people do not change most default options. And companies know this.

The default is your chats are their property to train on and use as they wish. If you dig into the Settings you can disable sharing chats with OpenAI, but you lose access to just about every feature including saving chats. You can only have one chat at a time, and if the window is closed or refreshed your chat is wiped. it's kind of like if opening a "Private Browsing" window prevented you from having a regular brows…

The 30 days part is most likely a legal compliance bit to cover their asses if their backing data systems ever take a big dump.

They need to use an asynchronous system to be tracking when your chat becomes "finished" and then likely queue it up to a system looking to propagate deletes. They have to choose some kind of SLA on that and probably went with a common data privacy user data deletion window of 30 days.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#196

Post by ipaddr » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:37 AM UTC

bavila wrote: post #130

hxugufjfjf wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your apology as it sort of came across that way. I'll give you a real-life anecdotal example to expand a little on my point. My buddy is a front-end developer for a company which produce pretty basic "stuff" (sorry, I don't know anything about front-end) according to him. He says that he's gotten lazy and unmotivated to do anything about it. This leaves him unchallenged and he doesn't really like his job…

Perhaps the fact that I work exclusively on the front-end is why I also derive tremendous value from GPT-4, and I have been perplexed by others saying they find no value in GPT-4 for coding. There is so much boilerplate BS that GPT-4 just nails down and lets me move on to bigger things. Just yesterday, I needed to mock up a quick prototype for a new feature we're developing. I just paste in my existing React componen…

If your job has a lot of boilerplate this is helpful. If your job is finding/solving complex system wide bugs this doesn't help as much.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#197

Post by jeremycarter » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:37 AM UTC

dgwight wrote: post #40

SushiHippie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably, does it have a GUI on its own, or is this something every company needs to implement themselves?

I am looking into open sourcing a PWA ChatGPT client for this. But I am not certain how to handle authentication without a backend or each user needing to add their OpenAI key

I am also working on a similar solution. How far did you get?

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#198

Post by jeremycarter » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:41 AM UTC

fakedang wrote: post #42

mrkramer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The market is definitely there for enterprise LLMs. Also in the news: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/02/chegg-drops-more-than-40perc... >but the real value comes from replace internal “tribal knowledge” with an AI who knows your org in and out I bet Microsoft is already working on that.

We already have something developed like that in our company (~30 pax employee owned wealth management firm). It's.... interesting. We currently use GPT-4 combined with an internal knowledge base we had earlier since the beginning, and we practically have to fire our chief of staff and the admin team. Just kidding, but it's made her team's work a ton easier that she can devote more time to the nitty-gritty hard stuff…

I am about to release a self hosted GPT that works with OpenAI and Azure OpenAI. It has several enterprise features, mostly around authentication/authorisation. I'll let you know when it drops or you can be a beta tester if you like!

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#199

Post by NhanH » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:42 AM UTC

oceanplexian wrote: post #180

NhanH wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not clear whether ChatGPT and the likes would increase productivity at the organization level. And I am talking about the current GPT-4, not some hypothetical AGI. From what I have seen, a large swath of usages are basically just people DDOSing their teams with a lot of words. Things like someone in a marketing team prompting for a “detailed 10-week plan with actual numbers” that naturally have no basis on reali…

All these arguments about how it can be wrong are literally identical to the arguments I heard from ignorant people between 2001-2008 on why search engines were unsafe because Google could return wrong answers or steal your data. IMO the only people crapping on AI either don’t know how to prompt it correctly, aren’t very creative, or frankly weren’t doing that much work in the first place and feel threatened by it. I…

There has always been two types of companies: those that are run well and have process to evaluate tools as they fit the business values and needs, and those that are full of grifters, chasing whatever hype is trending at any given moment. Unfortunately, the latter type of companies is far from crashing and burning (or at least not quickly enough).

You are neither arguing in good faith, nor even engaging in my argument at all. Please try not to do that. Your two paragraphs amount to nothing more than "if you are criticizing GPT-like tool, you are an idiot", that's not even an argument.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#200

Post by Retric » Wed, May 03, 2023, 1:43 AM UTC

jupp0r wrote: post #190

Retric wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gets into some really interesting corporate governance issues. The cloud is a terrible bet for many large companies. The benefits are minimal while the risks are huge, however what’s in the best interest for the company is only tangentially related to what happens. It’s really difficult to ensure companies actually take low probability risks seriously. A 1% chance to lose 10 billion dollars is an easy bet for upp…

As somebody who is completely puzzled why you could think that the cloud is a terrible bet for many companies - are these companies allowing their employees to use Google Search or other parts of the internet or do they have to look up things in paper books in the corporate library?

Let’s not pretend Google search is what people mean when they say “cloud.” It’s about running internal processes on external systems.

As to the risks, many companies live and die by their internal secrets. These range from a private keys, customer lists, trading strategies, and similar trade secrets to actual serious R&D efforts.

Sometimes the damage is obvious such as crypto exchanges suddenly finding themselves broke, but corporate espionage can also be kept quite. Losing major government bids because a competitor read some internal memo’s is a serious risk and you may never know.